POLITICAL DIRTY LAUNDRY?

The alleged laundry list of dirt against the Clintons is longer than Vince Foster's been dead.

So what's new, some will say? Well, here's something new that just might catch up with her at the worst of times.

Here is a WSJ piece that in this election year deserves more public light. To be sure, from our readings the WSJ is no friend of the Clintons. But to be even surer, it's no friend of ours either.

The public needs to know before not after this election, for example, just who is this Byron Pagliano, the guy who supposedly handled Hillary's IT needs for her 2008 presidential run. Pagliano later worked for her both in private and at the State Department. According to the Journal, she carved out a
special government position for him just and claims he came just months after she arrived and exited when she did, not necessarily unusual but there's more to the story.

What makes it even more important he allegedly received pay from her and the State Department. He is now one of many insiders allegedly "who were compensated to work simultaneously for the government and the Clintons." There's a conflict of interest not just in time.

What makes it even more important he allegedly received pay from her and the State Department. He is now one of many insiders allegedly "who were compensated to work simultaneously for the government and the Clintons." There's a conflict of interest not just in time.

Mr. Pagliano reportedly recently received immunity from the Justice Department to presumably find out what he knows that would have, if certain allegations are true, serious implications. The public in this election year needs to know, again, before not after.

And there is another tentacle that may come to light and explain why so many fear a Trump versus Hillary race. What if anything does a supposedly loose canon like him know and perhaps not be intimidated from blabbing during the heat such a campaign will surely cause?

Leftists over the years love to cite Nixon's erased tapes during the Watergate scandal. We don't recall what Nixon's feeble excuse was. What we do know is someone erased 31,830 of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's e-mails. But even the little of what got turned over has raised serious questions about improprieties.

 Here is her comment from a recent debate with Sanders when the subject came up.
The issue’s potential for bursting into the campaign was highlighted in this week’s Democratic debate, when moderator Jorge Ramos asked Mrs. Clinton if she would drop out of the race if she is indicted.

“Oh, my goodness. That is not going to happen. I’m not even going to answer that question,’’ she said.

And that raises a serious question for Bernie Sanders supporters. Is he just another dishonest politician or he does he really believe in the public's right to know? Especially before an election of this posited import.

Here's the link to the WSJ piece. Read it and decide for yourself. Read it with this question in mind: Do you want to know? How you answer that question will say much about who you are and much of the sincerity of the clamoring for an honest and transparent government so popular these days.

wsj.com/articles/hillarys-other-server-scandal

There is another concern here as this link points out, the Justice Department might back off during the election. In other words, not do what you the people of this nation are paying them to do in their job, but decide when and where they want to do it.

 wsj.com/articlesclinton-email-probe-enters-tricky-phase-as-election-intensifies